THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.9930 OF 2013

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the representation dated 07.01.2013 made by petitioner and in not taking any action for cancellation of layout permissions granted in favour of respondent No.5 by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide L.P.No.45 of 2005 in Proc.No.D2/1491/2005 dated 16.06.2006 and L.P.No.15/2005 dated 16.06.2006 in Proc.No.D2/7925/2004, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the representation dated 07.01.2013 made by the petitioner and cancel the aforesaid layout permissions granted in favour of respondent No.5.

2. Pending the Writ Petition, respondent No.5 died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.6 to 10 vide orders dated 10.20.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025.

3. Since the matter pertains to 2013 and in the nature of disposal of the writ petition, the matter is preceded without the presence of the LRs of the 5th respondent.

4. Heard Mr.A.Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for 1^st respondent-

Municipal Corporation.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of land in Survey No. 251/EE1, situated at Kanteshwar Sivar, Nizamabad District and that respondent No.5, who is the owner of the adjacent land admeasuring Acres 6.21 guntas, with a mala fide intention, to encroach the petitioner’s land, had submitted two layout plans before respondent Nos.1 and 2 for a total extent of Acres 8.00 guntas, over and above the land possessed by him, and the said authorities without verifying the title documents and without examining the ownership aspect, have granted layout permissions in L.P.No.45/2005/HRO/H1/C.No.502/ 05/HRO/H1 and L.P. No.15/2005/HRO/H1/66/2005/HRO. 6. The petitioner further contends that, though respondent No.5 is having ownership only to an extent of Acs.6.21 gts., under the guise of sanctioned layouts, he encroached on to the petitioner’s land and is attempting to sell it to the prospective purchasers. Though the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent Nos.1 and 2, requesting cancellation of the layouts granted in favour of respondent No.5, the said authorities have not taken any action thereon till date. Aggrieved by their inaction, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1, being the statutory authority, ought to have examined the documents filed by respondent No.5 and, only upon prima facie satisfaction regarding title, ought to have granted permission for the layouts, but the respondent No.1, without verifying any documents, straightaway issued layout permissions in favour of respondent No.5, which is violative of due procedure contemplated under the Municipal Corporation Act.

8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the after due satisfaction regarding prima facie title only layout permission was granted in favour of respondent No.5.

9. He further contended that the petitioner, who claims title to a portion of the layout, ought to have filed an appropriate civil suit before the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession and only in the event of the competent Court passing a decree in his favour, can challenge the layout which was duly sanctioned by the respondents.

10. I have taken note of the respective submissions made and perused the record.

11. Upon due consideration of the rival contentions advanced by the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, this Court is of the view that the matter involves disputed questions on factual aspects, which require appreciation of evidence and such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.